Going Postal
08.13.2026
First, a correction. In our last alert, we said that in the recent court ruling concerning SBRs, SBSs, and suppressors, AOWs were not included. That was not accurate. There were multiple plaintiffs in that case, and the court said that removing the regulations on AOWs only applied to SOME of the plaintiffs. We regret that error.
Now the Office of Legal Counsel has issued an opinion saying that the ban on possession of firearms in Post Offices is not lawful.
Please keep in mind, this is an opinion. It does not change current enforcement.
However, if you read the existing “rule,” you can see that the ban never made sense. The rule says that a firearm can be carried in a Post Office “for any lawful purpose”.
How this has been twisted into a ban on law-abiding gun owners carrying guns in Post Offices is baffling. But now the Federal Office of Legal Counsel has correctly noted that Congress never banned firearms in Post Offices.
The opinion does say “A post office is unquestionably a facility within the meaning of section 930. S”. This raises an interesting question which OFF attempted years ago to resolve with no success. There are still many places in rural America where Post Offices are located in private businesses and even person’s homes. The opinion appears to take no note of that fact.
In the opinion, the OLC noted: “We would have significant constitutional concerns if Congress had created such a blanket ban on the lawful carrying of constitutionally protected arms into a building frequented by the public since the Founding. But we ultimately need not reach that issue here, as Congress has exempted the“lawfulֻcarrying”ֻofֻ firearmsֻ orֻ otherֻ dangerousֻ weaponsֻ “incidentֻ toֻ huntingֻ orֻ otherֻ lawfulֻ purposes.” 18 U.S.C. § 930(d)(3). Because carrying arms for self-defense when entering a buildingֻ heldֻ openֻ toֻ theֻ publicֻ isֻ aֻ paradigmaticֻ“lawfulֻpurpose[],”ֻthatֻ exception permits the lawful carrying of constitutionally protected firearms in post offices. Id.”
The opinion goes on to state: “Section 930(d) lists three exceptions to the general prohibition against possessing firearms in federal facilities. The prohibition does not apply to:
(1) the lawful performance of official duties by an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a state, or a political subdivision thereof, who is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of law;
(2) the possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon by a federal official or a member of the Armed Forces if such possession is authorized by law; or
(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.”
Emphasis added.
The opinion also says : “You have asked whether the Department should continue to take a narrowֻviewֻofֻtheֻ“lawfulֻpurposes”ֻexception,ֻallowingֻ theֻ impositionֻ ofֻ criminal penalties on otherwise law-abiding individuals who carry weapons into a post office for the purpose of self-defense. It should not.You have asked whether the Department should continue to take a narrowֻ viewֻ ofֻ theֻ“lawfulֻ purposes”ֻexception,ֻallowingֻ theֻ impositionֻ ofֻ criminal penalties on otherwise law-abiding individuals who carry weapons into a post office for the purpose of self-defense. It should not.”
Emphasis added.
The opinion goes on to say : “That Congress historically addressed the problem of violence at post offices and against postal workers through“materially different means” suggests that there is no history or tradition of restricting firearms in post offices.”
Just as in the recent decision concerning NFA items, this opinion is far from the last word. But it is another positive step in the long battle to claw back our God-given rights.